Thoughts on international justice from The Hague and beyond.

Main menu

Category Archives: Syria

“We’re determined to shake this feeling of helplessness and start to act. We’re determined, we’re united and we will march as long as it takes. For peace.”

These words are taken from the manifesto of the Civil March for Aleppo. The march starts on the 26th of December in Berlin and is headed for Aleppo via Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey. For those interested in joining the march or in assisting the project, read the message from the organizers!

Who we are

We are a group of individuals, who come from different European countries. And we have enough of feeling helpless about the war in Syria. We couldn’t stand it any longer. We know that as citizens we have power and strength and we want to manifest our attitude toward what is happening. We know that we are not alone. We believe that thousands of people will join this march, for one day, for one week, for one month. Together we will walk. We will walk in peace. We will walk for those who were not lucky enough to be born in Berlin, London or Paris.

Briefly about the project

We will start on 26th December from Berlin (yes, it is very soon, but very soon it will be too late). Our estimates are that it will be 3000 of us on the first day in Berlin but the numbers are dynamic and it is hard to predict how many of us will show up. We want to gather more people on the way and gain the attention of the whole world – for peace in Aleppo.

There are already many, many people involved all over Europe but we still need a lot of support from lawyers, doctors, the media in all of the countries on the way. If you cannot join the march but still want to help, we urgently need assistance of lawyers, especially from the states we are about to go through. For more details you can contact us @ civilmarchforaleppo@gmail.com .

This march is what we can do about the situation in Syria right here and right now. That’s why we have to do it.

Chris Tenove is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at the University of British Columbia. You can find more of his writing at his personal site, from which the following is cross-posted, and follow him at @cjtenove.

On May 22, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power asked Qusai Zakariya of Syria to stand up in the gallery of the United Nations Security Council. Ambassador Power was in the midst of arguing for a draft resolution to refer the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court. She had to justify a resolution that some – including Ambassador Power herself in the past – had suggested could undermine a peace deal, and that was doomed to be vetoed by China and Russia. (Others have commented on the speech and the U.S. strategy, here and here.) Mr. Zakariya, a victim of a chemical attack, would be part of that justification.

Several scholars have written about how different actors make assertions about victims of international crimes in order to promote their aims or authority. Among others, Kendall and Nouwen argue that “the Victims” is an abstract category that justifies international criminal justice and displaces the voices of actual victims; Sagan has claimed that African war criminals and victims are discursive subjects integral to the project of cosmopolitan liberal justice; and Dixon and I argued that victims are central to claims about legal, expert and moral authority. So it is interesting to look closely at the rhetorical deployment of Mr. Zakariya.

Beyond The Hague is delighted to welcome Sophie Rigney for this timely piece on the relevance of international law to the Syrian situation. This post is cross-posted from New Matilda, where it was first published on 28 August.

International law’s capacity to remedy the crisis in Syria is fraught. How will investigators collect evidence under sniper fire? What about Russia’s veto – and US intervention?

The alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria has galvanised calls for action to stop further mass atrocities, and to ensure those responsible are held to account. While the conflict in Syria has progressed for over two years and claimed between 80,000 and 100,000 lives, this chemical weapons attack has been widely perceived as having crossed a new line of unacceptability in the war. It has serious implications for the Syrian conflict.

Photo credit: NBC

There are two separate, but linked, issues of international law that arise from this recent attack.

The first is the question of external intervention through use of force (either by a country like the United States, a coalition of countries, or a regional cooperation institution like NATO).

In particular, what prerequisites would an external party or parties need to satisfy in order to legally use force in Syria? Military intervention is, in principle, contrary to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Recent comments by US President Barack Obama demonstrate that international law is very much to be considered as part of this decision-making process (or at least, that having a legal rationale for the use of force is seen to be preferable).